Partially upheld: irresponsible lending / satisfactory quality of goods complaint against STARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Miss S purchased a used car via hire purchase from Startline in July 2025. Within three months and less than 2,500 miles of use, the car developed mechanical faults including a failed suspension mount and radiator. After a third-party garage inspection advised the car was unsafe to drive, Miss S arranged repairs without obtaining Startline's prior authorisation. Startline refused to reimburse the repair costs because the work was done without authorisation. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and that Miss S reasonably arranged repairs to ensure safety. The ombudsman ordered reimbursement of £400.66 for suspension and radiator repairs plus interest and £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience, but excluded the air conditioning repair costs as preventative rather than remedial.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 satisfactory quality standard, considering the car's age, mileage, price, and durability. The ombudsman found that while some wear and tear was reasonable given the car's age and mileage, the suspension mount and radiator failures within three months and less than 2,500 miles of use indicated the car was not durable when supplied. The ombudsman concluded it was reasonable for Miss S to arrange repairs without Startline's authorisation because the garage advised the car was unsafe to drive and the hire purchase terms permitted alterations necessary to ensure safety. The ombudsman rejected Startline's argument that continued use caused the faults, finding instead that the faults were likely developing or present at supply. The ombudsman awarded £250 compensation (rather than the investigator's recommended £50) because Miss S relied heavily on the car for day-to-day needs and caring responsibilities, making the impact of the unsafe vehicle greater than typical.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website